Colombia's problems are in many ways beyond our control. As long as the profits of such a large and nefarious enterprise, then we in Colombia will always be combating them. I am pleased, however, that Uribe seems on the verge of finishing off the FARC. They are down to 8,000 under arms down from 30,000 at the start of his government in 2002. As for Chavez, Correa and Ortega, they are a menace. Chavez has an 47% approval rating. Uribe, after the raid in Ecuador, hit 87% (before the raid, he was hovering in the high 60% range).

Start with marijuana, stop locking up addicts, and add drugs on a set schedule to give society time to adjust.

I agree the war on drugs is a failure, and I agree that society is better off with certain drugs legalized, taxed, and regulated and other drugs kept illegal.

I have the sense that once people have broken the law by smoking pot, it makes it that much easier for people to break the law by using other illegal drugs.  Make pot legal, and use of illegal drugs may actual decrease.

what most people (including politicians and police) fail to recognize is that most of the physical harm associated with cocaine isn't from the cocaine, it's from the various and sundry items used to cut it. try sniffing talcum powder and see how it feels.

assume that the average street cocaine is only running 20% pure. what is that other 80% making up the weight? you probably don't want to know. think: the jungle, upton sinclair's expose' of the meat packing industry. hotdogs anyone?

the same is true for heroin, or pretty much any other alkaloid sold loose; 80% of what your sniffing/injecting isn't the drug, it's filler. don't take my word for it, do your own research.

practically anything, if abused, will cause harm. however, there is scant medical evidence to suggest that the use of pure drugs, even long-term, is as harmful to the individual and society as the war on drugs has been.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw

Virginia farmers can grow the poison tobacco, but Columbian or Afghan farmers can't grow cocaine and opium, at least in theory.

The basic fact the prohibitionists refuse to acknowledge is that people like to get high...always have always will.  And as long as people wanna get high, people will be growing and refining drugs.  This is the reality we must face.  

My point is that when thinking about legalizing drugs it's useful to consider the impact of watering them down.  Putting a little cocaine back in Coca-Cola, mild marijuana cigarettes, etc would be great.  If you had to drink two quarts of fluid to get into troublesome amounts of heroine it might not be too bad.  This is how it is with alcohol now.  

These and other drugs can certainly be regulated and even made prescription only to try to get some control. And like oxycontin and others, you could have some sort of fines or other minor results if you're using it without a prescription. We should treat addictions to these substances as what they are, addictions.

I wonder what you think about their jury nullification idea. A stopgap at best, I think.

I was once on a jury hearing a drug posession with intent to sell case. Every single member of that Manhattan jury held rather strong opinions against the Rockefeller drug laws - we mentioned them in voir dire, and were seated anyway after being reminded by the judge that sentencing was not our  job - but we voted to convict, in the end. I know that we deliberated for a lot longer than we really needed to (the evidence was fairly clear) because we were all aware of the likely consequences of conviction and didn't want to make that decision in a hurry or without due examination of the evidence. But somehow jury nullification never entered our discussion.

For those who sell them illegally, 5 years or so on the first conviction, death for the second.

Spend the money saved on education and health care.

That those with addictive personalities will probably die an early death is a given, but think of it as gene pool improvement.

BTW - I would grandfather tobacco into the same category. It is the most dangerous drug of all.

1. what is the problem which the change in policy is intended to alleviate?
   
2. how effective is the change in policy likely to be at doing so?
   
3. what are possible or likely unintended consequences of the change in policy?
   
4. what are the most effective ways to mitigate those consequences?

On the one hand, legalizing marijuana and cocaine would cut heavily into the economic underpinnings of organized crime and street gangs, and would give us a very clear picture of who is buying drugs and how frequently.  On the other hand, gang culture may be so entrenched in society by now that the violence associated thereto may continue, and they may seek alternative means to continue bringing in income, probably through other illicit and anti-social activities(theft, burglary, armed robbery, sale of still-banned narcotics, etc).
Even so, it is likely that incarceration rates would decline, which would benefit both the state government budgets and the communities which would get their young men back.
Another issue is, can you have legalization on the one hand, and effective rehabilitation and education/prevention programs on the other?  Obviously the tax proceeds from drug sales would have to go towards rehab, prevention, and local infrastructure such as public schools, public works and police and fire departments.
It's not entirely unlikely that there could be an initial spike in drug use, in which case it might take a while to reduce usage again.

If it were part of a "clean up the neighborhood" effort, that might work very well.  Of course, when neighborhoods do improve, property values rise, and rents along with it.  Without some form of freeze in rent levels(or temporary subsidy), a lot of people could be forced to re-locate to areas with lower property values(i.e., back into an economically depressed community).

The problem is always to separate the drug from the consequences of its illegality. I know cocaine is bad for you but being shot so someone can buy more is bad for me. And the latter involves making the drug illegal.

If someone wants to kill themselves slowly with narcotics (or quickly with a .44 for that matter), I don't see it as my business or the states to stop them.

I don't understand why the rest of us have to be so restricted because some people can't handle their addictions. Besides, they are far less likely to seek help if they think they will be jailed for it.

It's a medical problem, and criminalizing it just ruins families and the future lives of people. Especially if they don't have the money to fight convictions.